Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Since when do the bomb-droppers use facts? Perhaps it is you who should learn more about the world. In the first place, the terrorists WANTED the US to respond by invading Arab countries. All we have done is prove them right in their statement that we are imperialists.

We wouldn't have attacked if we thought that it would be aiding terrorists, and the American government has a lot more information on these different subjects than we do. Some people have used this invasion to say that Americans are trying to turn imperialist, but that's the breaks. We invaded Afghanistan and set up its own government and most of our troops have left there now. Afghanistan isn't a satellite state, and our invasion did greatly diminish the terrorists' ability to act. Iraq has a huge history of links to terror, and those links go even into the present. Things have been found in Iraq, if I recall correctly, that do link it to Al'Quaeda as well, but that link isn't necessary to establish because of the visible ties to terror that Saddam didn't even deny. The ones involving Israel, for example.

But these invasions do have good affect, and even if we haven't found the WMDs yet, we have found huge amounts of evidence supporting their existence in Iraq.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
In the second place, if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't care one way or the other. And finally, the matters you are stating that the United Nations should have power over are matters it does not have power over because WE created the UN and didn't give them that power.

America, you might want to remember, was one of the first countries to become involved in the UN. And are you saying it's because we want Iraq's oil that we're going in? I'm sorry, but I've heard that argument refuted so many times in so many ways I am not interested in hearing it. Sorry, I don't want to offend. But do you want to hear me or jerseydevil go into the numerous evidences against desire for oil being the cause of this invasion?

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The point of democracy is to provide a means by which people can resolve their differences peacefully.

Democracy isn't all about keeping peace, any more than any other government is. It's a government that involves people-rule.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
If people feel they have a voice and some way to get their fair share, they are more than happy to sit down and work it out. The suicide bombings are all by people who feel they are not represented.

I most of the way agree with you, but not entirely. A lot of the suicide bombers in Iraq are people who've been lied to, tricked, or who have been brought up in suicide bomber training camps. They are attacking because of Saddam's regime, but most of the people of Iraq realize the truth about our invasion. If it weren't for the cooperation of the people of Iraq, the invasion would have been a heck of a lot harder.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You can't stop them by making more martyrs. That just makes them crazier. History, Mr You-Should-Learn_More, has shown that only negotiation ends the cycle of hate, and only when those who feel they are disenfranchised begin to feel they are enfranchised do the guerilla tactics and terrorist acts stop.

But if they have a ruler like Saddam Hussein, negotiation doesn't work. I don't see Saddam Hussein as being that different from Hitler, and Hitler didn't stop no matter what. He wanted power, and he would never stop going for it. With people like that, negotation won't work. We've been doing everything we can for the people of Iraq and you'll see that this invasion is not imperialistic in nature. Only in the very early days of America were we occasionally trying for empire-like goals. We moved out of Germany and Japan, after giving them huge amounts of money to get their economies running. We have never shown an imperialistic tendency; Afghanistan is an example of how the Bush Administration hasn't changed that.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The world did not change on 9/11. Some sleeping people woke up, but it's still the same world. It's just that things that happened to other people happened to us.

I think I probably agree with you there.

[Elfhelm]

I was adressing my remarks to a person who was implying that anyone who wanted to resolve things with diplomacy was ignorant.

I did not say we ARE imperialistic, I said it gives credence to their staement that we are. Bin Laden wanted us to attack. Just because some short-sighted people didn't think attacking would give strength to those fools doesn't mean they are right. I might think my foot isn't on fire, but it could be.

As to whether the whole Iraq thing is about oil, just call me very suspicious. There are many regimes who are far more despicable and we could care less about what they do. The Hussein family and the Bush family and Bechtel and many Bush cabinet members go way. back. So maybe it's not the pro-negotiation people who need to LEARN, but the ones who look to Fox News for fact - ha!

I think there are valid points all around, but the "you should go learn" nonsense is a stone thrown by a glasshouse dweller.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I did not say we ARE imperialistic, I said it gives credence to their staement that we are. Bin Laden wanted us to attack. Just because some short-sighted people didn't think attacking would give strength to those fools doesn't mean they are right. I might think my foot isn't on fire, but it could be.

Actually, there's NO way you could think your foot is on fire and it isn't . NO way . However, I'll go on to your other statements. I hope you'll forgive my not speaking about Dunedain's word choicage.

First of all, I think the invasion of Afghanistan did a lot more harm to Osama Bin Laden than good. Striking at terrorists whom other people think are freedom fighters or heroes might cause those people to join the terrorists, but you've still struck at a large number of terrorists. If you never strike against terrorists for fear of spurring more terrorists, you're not going to get anywhere. Do you propose our negotiating with organized terrorists until we convince them to no longer be terrorists?

I agree that different measures can be sometimes taken, and different approaches are in order for different situations. For example, I think that Israel's invasions on the Palestinians aren't doing any good, and won't bring anything but further death and destruction. However, I think that the U.S.'s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were done against organized bodies of terrorists that we can root out without causing worse terrorism. Those wars, in the long run, I think were very well placed. Israel's, on the other hand, while working with some small success in the short term might have far worse affects in the long run.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
As to whether the whole Iraq thing is about oil, just call me very suspicious. There are many regimes who are far more despicable and we could care less about what they do.

It's also a question of what's more of a threat to us. Iraq's government had gained large amounts of wealth because of their oil, and we knew very well that they were sponsoring terror. We also knew that they had WMDs, because of intelligence information. What is a threat to our national security? As has been pointed out by multiple anti-war people, America can't just go and attack every dictatorship in the world. We have to pick and choose. Iraq's government having so much money, such a brutal recent history, and such strong links to terror cause it to be a strong target. Directly after 9/11, President Bush was considering going to war with Iraq, but Tony Blair took a flight to America and convinced him to wait. And they tried very, very hard to solve the issue by negotation after that.

[Elfhelm]

Well, I respect your opinion and appreciate the civilized way your express yourself without needing to insult other people.

This is what our democracy is about:

"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

So don't tell me it's not about living together in peace with people despite our disagreements. Jefferson knew about Degonaweda and modeled the US on the Seneca. You can spout an opinion or you can go read Jefferson's Letters as I have.

[Lief Erikson]

What I was trying to say was that it never says in there "Peace at all costs." Preemptive attack is an extension of national defense in this case. It is a part of our national defense to be able to strike before being struck. If you wait and take a blow, as happened at 9/11, then your people will suffer. But if you know that someone else is going to attack you, eliminating their ability to cause damage to you is national defense. I know that the precedent it sets can be worrisome and might be misused in the future. That's a risk.

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, which is why I say I respect your opinion.

I realise Saddam was paying money to the families of suicide attackers. I realise that he had torture prisons, that he practised genocide on the Kurds, etc. But what about Turkey? They practise genocide on the Kurds but they are in NATO so that's OK? What about Israel? They broke peace accords to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and built settlements there. What about England? They were genocidal towards Ireland. Why didn't we invade Chile or China?

OK, so it all comes down to if they sponsor terrorism - but not just any terrorism, only the terror directed at us? So let the Russians deal with the Chechnyans? Let England deal with Ireland? Let Japan deal with Korea?

Or maybe we should - I know - form a UN to deal with it all together?! Hey what a good idea! Too bad some people insist on breaking ranks.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But what about Turkey? They practise genocide on the Kurds but they are in NATO so that's OK? What about Israel? They broke peace accords to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and built settlements there. What about England? They were genocidal towards Ireland. Why didn't we invade Chile or China?

It's a matter of what's practical as well as what's right. Our trying to invade the Soviet Union while Russia was Communist would have led to world catastrophe. We aren't the world police. We can only deal with what we know we can do.

In some of those situations though, I agree that we haven't done right. Like with Israel in particular; I don't know enough about the situation with Turkey to say. I think our country is wrong to give blind support to Israel, and I really hope that the Bush Administration will open its eyes a bit more to what's really been happening in Palestine.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
OK, so it all comes down to if they sponsor terrorism - but not just any terrorism, only the terror directed at us? So let the Russians deal with the Chechnyans? Let England deal with Ireland? Let Japan deal with Korea?

Once again, we can't do everything. We can't attack all terrorism; it's too broad a field. We can strike at all of it that we can, though being careful as to which targets. Some terrorism can be eliminated or greatly reduced by increasing the wealth of that part of the country, or giving economic possibilities. Negotiations can deal with some of it. Other groups, like some terrorist organizations such as Al'Quaeda, have to be dealt with by force.

We have to narrow the field from "all terrorism", and focus upon what directly affects us or is most dangerous to world safety, or to our policies and nation. Iraq was one of the targets that field was narrowed to. It had wealth, WMDs, links to terror, and was a dangerous threat to our nation. They could threaten large parts of the Middle East with their chemical and biological weapons, and the threat of their gaining nuclear weapons in the future was also worth thinking seriously about. We stopped them before they could become a fully developed danger. North Korea is dangerous, and I pray every day for some peaceful method to be found to aleviate the tension there. We have to be careful about which targets we pick, and Iraq was a threat.

[Elfhelm]

I agree.

But I would also add that we shouldn't be trying to go it alone. We have to work with other countries on this, otherwise they'll just move from the country we attack to the one we don't. And that means having to put up with slow movement in the UN.

Why didn't Bush, Sr. finish the job vs. Saddam the first time when we were clearly right for defending an ally? Sanctions only hurt the poor people.

Again, the reason these people are terrorists is because they don't believe they have any other recourse. Maybe if we supported the UN and let more people in they wouldn't feel that way.

The Israel issue is obvious, isn't it? It goes back to the 10th century, and even earlier. We don't want the sacred places in the hands of infidels.

The thing is, whenever they call on God I get suspicious. You know, the other side is calling on God, too. It's just absurd. God doesn't condone war. We are given free will to choose to be good, and if we choose to do wrong and claim it is in His name, then the wrong is doubled. Of course, they have been doing it that was for thousands of years so I shouldn't be shocked. You'd just think that people who actually read the scriptures, on both sides, would point out that it is a lie. But instead they all seem to be lining up to help in the stoning.

The way I see it is this. There are half a dozen creepo nations out there we could have attacked. Why only go for the one with oil? And why call on God? I am just too suspicious to let that sit. Oil because we drive cars and God because it doesn't have to be proven.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But I would also add that we shouldn't be trying to go it alone. We have to work with other countries on this, otherwise they'll just move from the country we attack to the one we don't. And that means having to put up with slow movement in the UN.

I definitely agree that we cannot try to accomplish this alone. And we aren't; we've been working with the police and with investigators of numerous other countries in a collaborative war against terrorism. Whether we have to use the UN to get a collaborative war on terror is another matter.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Why didn't Bush, Sr. finish the job vs. Saddam the first time when we were clearly right for defending an ally? Sanctions only hurt the poor people.

First of all, it was the UN that put the sanctions on Iraq, not exclusively the United States.

There were a few reasons we didn't take Saddam Hussein out of power then. First of all, I believe we'd made agreements with other countries in order to get the UN's support for that war. Those agreements probably helped to stop us short of conquering.

The reason I am sure about though is that President Bush Senior didn't have a plan ready for a new government of Iraq. The purpose of the coalition was to liberate Kuwait, not to liberate Iraq. If we had taken out Saddam then, we would have been in a position we weren't prepared for, and that was running Iraq.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Again, the reason these people are terrorists is because they don't believe they have any other recourse. Maybe if we supported the UN and let more people in they wouldn't feel that way.

Actually, that statement is only true in certain circumstances, and those situations I agree with you about. That's the situation with Israel, and invasion isn't going to help solve anything because it simply causes more despair and breeds a larger atmosphere for terrorism.

With Al'Quaeda and Saddam's regime though, the situation was totally different. With Al'Quaeda, they weren't terrorists out of necessity; far from it. With Saddam Hussein, he trained people to be terrorists in camps. There's a difference between organized and trained terrorists and terrorism inspired by despair. The terrorism that is caused by having no alternatives, by desperation, I agree with you completely about. Military will not solve those issues permanently; negotiations and economic support will do that far better. With groups of terrorists like Al'Quaeda, they certainly don't do it out of lack of alternatives. With regimes like Saddam's, they ARE the terrorists. And they aren't forced to be like what they are out of necessity. That is why it is so important to deal with groups like that. Groups that choose purposely the way of murder and destruction when they had other options available to them. Those are the groups that we should be hunting and are hunting most. The others we have to deal with also, and I do think that Israel should be able to protect itself from those terrorists, but I don't think that military aggression into Palestinian refugee camps is a good way to go about that.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The Israel issue is obvious, isn't it? It goes back to the 10th century, and even earlier. We don't want the sacred places in the hands of infidels.

Actually, that is totally not why we're supporting Israel so blindly. In some cases, it's because of Christians saying that this return is prophesied in the Bible and the Bible says we must support them. It's also true that there are a lot of American Jews who have a strong say in our country's stance. There are reasons why our country is so biased in favor of the Israeli state, but it's really disappointing and worrying.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The way I see it is this. There are half a dozen creepo nations out there we could have attacked. Why only go for the one with oil? And why call on God? I am just too suspicious to let that sit. Oil because we drive cars and God because it doesn't have to be proven.

The reason God has been brought into this is because some anti-war Christians say that God is against killing, period. Which is of course ridiculous, considering how God killed so many himself and ordered numerous of his servants to kill or slaughter in specific circumstances.

The income from taking Iraq's oil would be almost nothing compared to the costs of the war. Do you honestly think that we'd get over 80 billion dollars out of Iraq? And not only that, but we'd severely blast our relations with the coalition and just about every other country if we did do anything like that- our country has stated numerous times that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Breaking our word now would be disastrous for the Bush Administration, and the public of America would also be furious.

Not only that, but during the Gulf War we could have taken the oil. The newest war with Iraq has driven our economy further downhill; we've paid a heavy price for Iraq's liberation. The money we could earn is far less than we would be spending, not to mention the bad affects the war has had upon our foreign relations. These affects had to be taken into account as the war was planned. Do you honestly think that the oil is worth that much?

Also, we haven't been using God as any sort of a proof that we should go to war with Iraq. Though some Christians have made that argument, and done so pretty well, in my opinion. But we'd had huge amounts of evidence that there are WMDs in Iraq before we launched the invasion. Evidence from other countries, from our own intelligence, from defectors, from satellites, from communication taps, from all sorts of sources.

[Elfhelm]

Well, there's also the testing of our advance weaponry in a real world situation. That's why Poland decided to buy jets from us instead of France. And it doesn't have to balance for America, it only has to profit the family of the current president for me to get suspicious.

But for the record, we certainly CAN recoup 80 billion. It would take more than that to switch to fuel cells, so now we can postpone that. But it will have to happen someday.

Of course, when the baby boomers realise that we've thrown our social security rescue out the window so the Bush family can stay rich, our budgetary priorities will change.

[Lief Erikson]

( Shakes his head) Jeepers, you really are down on the Bushes. What evidence do you have that they're sacrificing all these lives and all these billions of dollars for their own personal benefit? Man, that's really painting them as only slightly better than Saddam.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But for the record, we certainly CAN recoup 80 billion. It would take more than that to switch to fuel cells, so now we can postpone that. But it will have to happen someday.

The Bush Administration would be committing suicide if it stole Iraqi oil, and it would take a huge amount of time to make up the difference. The costs of such a war like this one are far greater than the benefits, except where national security is concerned.

[Aralyn]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
In the second place, if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't care one way or the other.

I would just like to point out that the majority of our oil comes from Venezuela and we don't need Iraq's oil. We (usa) don't even buy our oil directly from countries. We buy from an international oil company that collects oil from all around. This seams to be a big misconception.

[Elfhelm]

Well, slap a God Bless America bumpersticker on my SUV, I have seen the light.

[Lief Erikson]

Is that a joke?

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Aralyn
I would just like to point out that the majority of our oil comes from Venezuela and we don't need Iraq's oil.

That is untrue. Most of our oil is drilled here at home, also some comes from Mexico and Canada. Venezuala may be fourth, I'm not sure on that.

And on that note, I am leaving this thread. It is, as I said, more malicious than Entmoot as I know it, and I definately do not want to pull a jerseydevil and become so wrapped up in this debate that I bring it up elsewhere on Entmoot, and even won't discuss anything Tolkien with those that disagree on Iraq.

I may pop in occasionally, but I'll try not to.

My goodwill to all, Iraqis and warmongers alike!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Is that a joke?

Of course it's a joke - he said "SUV". *snicker*

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Is that a joke?

The post or the thread?

[Aralyn]

oops you're right elf girl. I read it wrong on the website.
But my poin was that it doesn't come from Iraq

[Elf Girl]

If it did, we wouldn't need to invade them to get it. *pops out of thread she has sworn off*